difference between anarchy and anarcho-capitalism

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
What to do? His property has now been irreversibly incorporated into my property

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not happen with land. The land parcels are still right there, separate and definable. I can show them to you on a map, on a satellite photo. I can stand there physically and point to their precise boundaries.

Now, you might say: "But I've spent lots of money building houses and shopping malls and skyscrapers on top of this stolen land. That makes it mine, right?"

I say: "No, it doesn't."

If property rights are truly sacred, then spending money to improve something that was stolen does not change the fact that it was stolen. If I steal your car, then spend $1000 fixing it up, does that make it legitimately mine now? When it comes to land improvements (on stolen land), the difference is purely one of scale. The principle is precisely the same. Stolen property is stolen property. Either that, or government titles (to stolen land) are legitimate and the government is therefore the source you are relying on to establish the legitimacy of your "property rights". Take your pick.


q/q

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If we're whiny spoiled brats, what are our polar opposites, the bleeding heart liberals?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you want to find the true opposite of an ACer, I'd start by looking for a Rationalist -- preferrably one with a solid understanding of basic economics.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

nh, sir [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Angry? maybe? correct? absolutely

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
So what if the government barred them from pursuing their claims in government courts? This is a MORAL issue, an issue of RIGHT. According to the ACer party line, the government cannot invalidate the rights of those the land was stolen from, so barring them from the court system doesn't change the validity of their right to the land. Not now, not ever. It's still theirs BY RIGHT. Or are you telling me that GOVERNMENT has the power to extinguish that RIGHT and establish a RIGHT for someone else (who is now in possession of stolen property)?

[/ QUOTE ]

NO ACist (that I am aware of) has ever claimed that government has the right to invalidate legitimate claims to property.

But the question of who currently owns some piece of land is far more complicated than your analysis accounts for. For one thing, every individual native american who had land stolen no longer exists, so it is not as if the original owner might walk in and reclaim his or her land. And while I agree that a stolen car would not become mine merely because I upgraded it a bit, it also seems to be true that the value of the upgrades are still mine. So if came to me because I had unwittingly bought ypur stolen car, and I had put new rims on, those rims are pretty clearly mine. All of this makes the current case tricky, esp. in cases where a piece of land that was possibly owned by native americans years ago now has a farm on it, a farm run by its current owners. These are only a few of the factors that need to be considered, and when everything is considered I do not think it is so obvious that the average individual doesn't really own his/her stuff.

What I do think, though, is that many large businesses that profit primarily because of their allaince with the State, are not legitimately owned by those who claim to own them. I think ideally that such businesses will be turned over to the people who have homesteaded the property in question, i.e. the workers.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
According to the ACer party line, the government cannot invalidate the rights of those the land was stolen from, so barring them from the court system doesn't change the validity of their right to the land.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

[ QUOTE ]
Not now, not ever. It's still theirs BY RIGHT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Rights have been violated, and damages have been incurred. But we can't say with certainty that the original owner retains a property right.

[ QUOTE ]
Or are you telling me that GOVERNMENT has the power to extinguish that RIGHT and establish a RIGHT for someone else (who is now in possession of stolen property)?

[/ QUOTE ]

The government doesn't establish the right for someone else. The government can transfer control to a different party, but cannot revoke or distribute property rights.

The original owner, if he doesn't pursue the claim, may be said to have abandoned the maintenance of his property. If one has prevented him from pursuing the claim, then that may (likely *will*) create further damages and further liability for the aggressor. But as time passes, the probability that the original owner retains that property right decreases.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
So theft is ok as long as you launder it through a third party?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, but I'm interested how have i indicated otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
Buying stolen property is ok?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you know about it yes you are doing something wrong. If you had no way of knowing how can you be at fault? Certainly bad for the person who's land was stolen but that is between the thief and the robber, not the uninformed buyer.

[ QUOTE ]
If I steal something from you and sell it to someone else "based on our mutual valuation of the (stolen) property's value" (etc), then I guess that means the theft is validated and you no longer have legitimate claim to the property that was stolen by me?

[/ QUOTE ]


You owe me the value of the stolen property, and maybe me and the buyer could work something out.

[ QUOTE ]
As I said : your conception of "property rights" is a thin sham. What you believe in is that which benefits you personally. Just like every other interest group in history.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't own much. I'm 18 years old and live in my parents house. When I move out in a couple months when going to college I'll be renting. Anarcho-capitalism may benifit me, but I think it benifits the whole to have choices as to how you live, and to have both economic freedom and freedom to do what I want as long as I'm not harmning others. Who doesn't that benifit?

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot have a meaningful system of "property rights" without a strong central state to enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false.

[/ QUOTE ]Why is it false? It's actually a choice between gangs of private armies (protecting private property, as is actually the case in vast regions of Latin America, Asia and elsewhere, for example) and government agents (doing pretty much the same job, but with ostensibly, approximately, hopefully, more democratically and equally).

Now about that holy notion of private property...

[lehighguy]

Why do you assume they do it more democratically or equally then private armies? Maybe they do a worse job.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You cannot have a meaningful system of "property rights" without a strong central state to enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is false.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is it false?

[/ QUOTE ]

A monopoly on force means the utter negation of property rights, as a monopolist on force is not responsible to anything or anyone. People already know this, which is why monarchies and dictatorships are rejected. Democracy has a cloak of legitimacy, but that's all it is. People without power think they control the ones with power; which is overly naive.